Delhi District Court
Rajni Bala Gupta vs Phool Chand And Ors on 23 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02: NORTH ROHINI
COURTS COMPLEX: DELHI
CNR No. DLNT01-008341-2016
CS DJ No. 1757/16
IN THE MATTER OF :
Smt. Rajni Bala Gupta
W/o Sh. Ajay Gupta
R/o 2377, R - 24, Mandi Extension,
Corporation Bank Wali Gali,
Narela, Delhi - 110040. .....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Phool Chand
Proprietor
Om Trading Co.
House No. 2382, T - 29/2,
Bawana Road, Mandi Extension,
Narela, Delhi - 110040.
2. Smt. Sangeeta Rani
W/o Sh. Phool Chand
House No. 2382, T - 29/2,
Bawana Road, Mandi Extension,
Narela, Delhi - 110040. .....Defendant
Date of Filing : 14/07/2016
Date of Conclusion of Argument : 17/01/2026
Date of Order Judgment : 23/01/2026
Suit for Recovery of Rs. 14,48,890/- with Pendente Lite and
Future Interest with Cost
CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 1 of 25
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall decide the present suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 14,48,890/-. Tersely put it is case of plaintiff that on asking of her husband she stood as guarantor for loan of defendants. The Bank appropriated the FDR amount on 20/05/2015 against loan granted. Recovery suit is thus filed. Defence is that Guarantee Agreement is forged and manipulated document.
PLAINTIFF's CASE
2. It is case of the plaintiff that Sh. Ajay Gupta is husband of the plaintiff. He was good friend of Sh. Phool Chand - defendant no. 1. Plaintiff stood guarantor in Loan taken by defendants from Punjab National Bank, Burari. For the purposes of guarantee, the plaintiff, as a guarantor, gave her FDR No. 105100DA00005182 as guarantee with the Bank. The Loan was not paid by the defendants. The Bank appropriated the FDR amount on 20/05/2015. Plaintiff suffered loss and the present suit for recovery of Rs. 12,93,750/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from June, 2015 till date of filing of the present suit is claimed.
DEFENDANT'S CASE
3. It is case of the defendant that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Plaintiff has never been guarantor in cash, credit limit facility availed by defendant no. 1 from Punjab National Bank. The CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 2 of 25 Guarantee Agreement dated 17/04/2012 is concocted and manipulated. Husband of the plaintiff had concocted by defendant no. 1. Defendants no. 1 & 2 are not party to Agreement dated 17/04/2012 and there is no privity of contract of plaintiff, defendants and Punjab National Bank.
4. It is also case of defendants that husband of plaintiff is hand in glove with officials of Bank. With these averments, dismissal of suit is prayed for.
REPLICATION
5. Replication dated 01/05/2017 to the Written Statement was filed. In essence, the averments in the plaint were reiterated and those in the written statements were denied.
ISSUES
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Court vide order dated 11/05/2017 :-
1. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties? OPD.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of suit amount, as prayed for? OPP.
CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 3 of 25
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the suit amount, if yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
4. Relief.
7. PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE S. No. Name of witness Remarks/documents tendered 1 PW1 - Smt. Rajni PW1 tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Bala Gupta Ex. PW1/A. She relied upon the following documents:
1. Mark 'A' - Agreement dated 17/04/2012;
2. Mark B - Copy of FDR dated 17/04/2012;
3. Ex. PW1/3 - Letter dated 30/05/2016 (Objected to mode of proof);
4. Ex. PW1/4 - Legal Notice dated 15/03/2016 and
5. Ex. PW1/5 - Postal Receipts
2 PW2 - Sh. Ajay He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.
Gupta PW2/A. He relied upon the document which had already been exhibited by PW1.
3 PW3 - Utkarsh He had brought the record pertaining to Bank Karan, Officer Scale Account Statement of Account No.
- 1, Punjab National 1051008700000480 Ex. PW3/A (Colly. Page nos. Bank, Burari Branch, 1 to 7).
Delhi He had also brought the account statement of Account No. 105100DA00005182 Ex. PW3/B (objected by Ld. Counsel for the defendant as the CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 4 of 25 same being not a summoned record).
He had also brought Certificate under Section 65B of The Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW3/C. 4 PW4 - Sh. Chandan He had brought the summoned record i.e. record Kumar, Officer Scale of FDR Customer ID No. HGZ/008959
- 1, Punjab National alongwith Certificate under Section 65B of The Bank, Burari Branch, Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW4/A (Colly.) (running Delhi in 6 pages).
8. Plaintiff evidence was closed on 05/10/2024.
9. DEFENDANT EVIDENCE S. No. Name of witness Remarks/documents tendered 1 DW1 - Sh. Phool He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Chand Ex. DW1/A. He relied upon the following documents :-
1. Copy of Sanction Letter dated 10/03/2012 as Mark 'A';
2. Copy of Letter of Hypothecation dated 15/03/2012 as Mark 'B';
3. Copy of Supplementary Agreement dated 15/03/2012 as Mark 'C';
4. Copy of Agreement of Guarantee dated 15/03/2012 as Mark 'D';
5. Copy of Agreement of Guarantee dated 17/04/2012 as Mark 'E';
6. Copy of Two Notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, dated 21/04/2014 as CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 5 of 25 Mark 'F' and
7. Copy of Account statement as Mark 'G'.
10. Defendant evidence was closed on 20/09/2025.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER :
Issue no. 1 is :
"Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non- joinder of parties? OPD."
11. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued on this issue that in his documents Mark 'E' at Page No. 48 is Agreement of Guarantee. In any case, Mark 'E' is between plaintiff and Punjab National Bank. There are no signatures of defendant and there is no privity of contract of the defendants with the Bank and plaintiff. Bank has not been impleaded as a party and the present suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary party.
12. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that plaintiff is guarantor of defendants. For the purposes of guarantee, the plaintiff, as a guarantor, gave her FDR No. 105100DA00005182 as guarantee with the Bank. The Loan was not paid by the defendants. The Bank appropriated the FDR amount on 20/05/2015. Plaintiff suffered loss and the present suit for recovery of Rs. 12,93,750/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 6 of 25 June, 2015 till date of filing of the present suit is claimed. Relief is directed against defendants the principal debtor and no relief is claimed against bank. An effective decree can be passed against defendants even in absence of Bank as a party. Plaintiff is the master or controller of the suit. He has power to decide who to sue, where, and for what, essentially steering the case and its scope. Defendants cannot dictate terms to plaintiff against whom to sue, especially his Bank is not a necessary party herein.
FINDING OF THE COURT ON ISSUE NO. 113. Submissions on behalf of defendant that in his documents Mark 'E' at Page No. 48 is Agreement of Guarantee. In any case, Mark 'E' is between plaintiff and Punjab National Bank. There are no signatures of defendant and there is no privity of contract of the defendants with the Bank and plaintiff. Bank has not been impleaded as a party and the present suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary party are without merits. These submissions are rejected as:
14. Perusal of record shows that plaintiff is guarantor of defendants. For the purposes of guarantee, the plaintiff, as a guarantor, gave her FDR No. 105100DA00005182 as guarantee with the Bank. The Loan was not paid by the defendants. The Bank appropriated the FDR amount on 20/05/2015. Plaintiff suffered loss and the present suit for recovery of Rs. 12,93,750/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 7 of 25 June, 2015 till date of filing of the present suit is claimed. Relief is directed against defendants the principal debtor and beneficiaries of loan. No relief is claimed against bank. An effective decree can be passed against defendants even in absence of Bank as a party. P laintiff is the master or controller of the suit. He has power to decide who to sue, where, and for what, essentially steering the case and its scope. Defendants cannot dictate terms to plaintiff against whom to suie, especially when the Bank is not a necessary party herein.
15. Issue no. 1 is decided against defendants.
Issue No. 2 is :
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of suit amount, as prayed for? OPP."
16. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued on this issue that vide Ex. PW1/3 i.e. Letter issued by Punjab National Bank dated 30/05/2016, it is clear that the FD of Smt. Rajni Bala - plaintiff was credited in account of Om Trading Company and thus, plaintiff had suffered loss.
17. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that vide CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 8 of 25 notice Ex. PW1/4, Rs.12,93,750/- were sought alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. The Speed Post Receipts are Ex. PW1/5 & Ex. PW1/6.
18. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the defendant has appended copy of Guarantee Agreement alongwith his documents from Pages 48 to 55 and thus, the Guarantee Agreement stands proved being an admitted document.
19. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that PW1 - Smt. Rajni Bala Gupta was cross-examined on 27/04/2022 and 29/04/2023. She is a house wife and her evidence be appreciated in that context in totality of circumstances.
20. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that PW3 - Sh. Utkarsh Karan, Officer from Punjab National Bank had brought the records pertaining to Account No. 1051008700000480. Further, PW4 - Sh. Chandan Kumar was also examined from Punjab National Bank to prove the summoned record i.e. FDR Ex. PW4/A (Colly.).
21. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that since amount was debited from account of the plaintiff, the defendant is duty bound to indemnify the guarantor - plaintiff (reliance is placed upon Section 145 of Indian Contract, Act, 1872).
CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 9 of 25
22. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendant contends that perusal of Mark 'A' at Page No. 21 of the documents of the defendant shows that the guarantor was Smt. Sangeeta Rani W/o Sh. Phool Chand and not the plaintiff as is projected by the plaintiff.
23. To this point, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has clarified that to clear the short comings, the plaintiff had stood as guarantor on asking of her husband, who was friend of defendant no. 1.
24. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the Sanction Letter itself is dated 10/03/2012 and thus, the alleged Guarantee Agreement projected by the plaintiff is manipulated document as after sanction, there was no need for guarantee. The Bank satisfies the financial capacity of the loanee before grant of loan.
25. To this point, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has clarified that even the guarantee by Smt. Sangeeta is subsequent to the Sanction Letter, which strengthens the case of the plaintiff that to clear short comings, later on, procedural formalities were fulfilled.
26. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that Sh. O. P. Gaur, who is witness to Guarantee Agreement dated 17/04/2012 was not examined. Since, plea of forgery was raised, it was incumbent CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 10 of 25 upon plaintiff to dispel all suspicious circumstances regarding this guarantee document, which was not done and thus, the suit be dismissed.
27. To this point, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has clarified that the Guarantee Agreement is proved as per law. Sh. O. P. Gaur, was not a necessary witness to be examined. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that DW1 - Sh. Phool Chand in h is cross-examination dated 03/05/2025 admitted that he had got approved Loan of Rs. 45 lacs from the Bank. Secondly, it is admitted that from Account No. 1051008700000480, Rs.12,93,730/- were debited. He could not tell as to why FDR of plaintiff was forfeited by the Bank.
28. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that PW3 - Sh. Utkarsh Karan in his cross-examination dated 02/02/2024 had stated that he has not brought record at Serial No. 2 (i) & 2 (ii) of application under Section 151 CPC for summoning of record which shows that once plea of forgery was raised, the original record was concealed and thus, adverse inference be inferred against the plaintiff.
29. To this point, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has clarified that the case of the plaintiff stands proved form admissions of DW1 - Sh. Phool Chand and documents produced by the defendants.
CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 11 of 25
30. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff in her evidence only mentioned that the Guarantee Agreement was executed in her and in her husband's presence. The Guarantee Agreement shows signatures of Bank Manager and thus, the case set up by the plaintiff is unreliable and thus, suit be dismissed.
31. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the Bank Manager had not signed on all the pages of the Guarantee Agreement and thus the Guarantee Agreement is proved to be forged.
32. To this point, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has clarified that the case of the plaintiff stands proved form admissions of DW1 - Sh. Phool Chand and documents produced by the defendants.
33. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that complete copy of Guarantee Agreement including the Stamp Papers was not produced. Reference is made to Page No. 49 of documents of the defendant. It is thus argued that the suit be dismissed.
34. To this point, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has clarified that the best evidence available with the plaintiff was produced and the plaintiff was not in possession of the complete Stamp Papers.
FINDING OF THE COURT ON ISSUE NO. 2CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 12 of 25
35. Tersely put it is case of plaintiff that she stood guarantor for loan on behalf of defendants. Guarantee was liquidated. Recovery from principal debtor-defendant no 1 is sought. Defence is that guarantee agreement is forged and manipulated document.
36. Perusal of the record shows that vide Ex. PW1/3 i.e. Letter issued by Punjab National Bank dated 30/05/2016, it is clear that the FD of Smt. Rajni Bala - plaintiff was credited in account of Om Trading Company(defendant no.1is its proprietor. Second defendant is wife of first defendant and also a co guarantor). Thus, plaintiff had suffered loss.
37. Perusal of the record shows that the defendant has appended copy of Guarantee Agreement alongwith his documents from Pages 48 to
55. DW1 - Sh. Phool Chand himself produced Copy of Agreement of Guarantee dated 17/04/2012 as Mark 'E'. It is not proved that the Guarantee Agreement is manipulated and concocted.
38. At time of tendering into evidence by PW1 - Smt. Rajni Bala Gupta on 03/07/2019 no objection qua mode of proof was taken qua guarantee agreement dated 17/04/2012 Mark 'A'. Objection qua mode of proof are taken to have been waived (reliance is placed upon case titled as ''V. R E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple & Others', decided on 8 October, 2003 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India).
CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 13 of 25
39. Perusal of record shows that PW3 - Sh. Utkarsh Karan in his cross-examination dated 02/02/2024 had stated that he has not bring record at Serial No. 2 (i) & 2 (ii) of application under Section 151 CPC for summoning of record (Loan Agreement of April 2012 and Guarantee Agreement by plaintiff for Om trading Company) as the same was destroyed. Secondary evidence has been lead by the parties. When original was destroyed secondary evidence is admissible as per law. Same has been duly lead as per satisfaction of the Court. Even a separate application to lead secondary evidence is not required (reliance for this statement of law is placed upon case titled as 'Shir Prem Chandra Jain (Deceased) vs Shri Sri Ram Deceased', decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 12th October, 2009 Equivalent citations: AIR 2010 (NOC) 424 (DEL.), 2010 AIHC (NOC) 580 (DEL.).
40. Perusal of the record shows that PW1 - Smt. Rajni Bala Gupta was cross-examined on 27/04/2022 and 29/04/2023. She is a house wife and her evidence be appreciated in that context in totality of circumstances. In totality she stood firm in her cross examination on essential features of the case. She deposed that FD was made from money lying in her savings account. She gave guarantee at behest of her husband. Chance admissions elicited during her cross examination that only she and her husband were present at time of signing of guarantee CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 14 of 25 documents are inconsequential. Admissions have to be appreciated as a whole. Fundamental features of the case are duly corroborated from documents on record i.e. guarantee agreement dated 17/04/2012 Mark 'A' (also Mark 'E' at pages 48-55 with documents of defendant). Evidence of PW1 - Smt. Rajni Bala Gupta is in consonance with natural human conduct under ordinary circumstances. She duly proved that her money was utilized by bank against default of defendants in repayment of loan by defendants.
41. Perusal of the record shows that PW3 - Sh. Utkarsh Karan, Officer from Punjab National Bank had brought the records pertaining to Account No. 1051008700000480. Further, PW4 - Sh. Chandan Kumar was also examined from Punjab National Bank to prove the summoned record i.e. FDR Ex. PW4/A (Colly.).
42. Perusal of the record shows that that since amount was debited from account of the plaintiff, the defendant is duty bound to indemnify the guarantor - plaintiff (reliance is rightly placed upon Section 140 and 145 of Indian Contract, Act, 1872 on behalf of plaintiff). The surety upon payment or performance of all that he is liable for, is invested with all the rights which the creditor had against the principal debtor.
CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 15 of 25
43. Perusal of the record shows that vide notice Ex. PW1/4, Rs. 12,93,750/- were sought alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. The Speed Post Receipts are Ex. PW1/5 & Ex. PW1/6. No reply was not despite serious allegations. Adverse inference is inferred against defendants.
FINDINGS ON SUBMISSIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
44. Submissions raised on behalf of defendant that perusal of Mark 'A' at Page No. 21 of the documents of the defendant shows that the guarantor was Smt. Sangeeta Rani W/o Sh. Phool Chand and not the plaintiff as is projected by the plaintiff, so suit be dismissed are without merits. These submissions are rejected as;
45. In view of findings returned in paragraphs above the Guarantee agreement of Plaintiff stands duly proved. Deduction from F.D. of plaintiff for loan by Om Trading stands duly proved by Ex. PW 4/A (Colly.).
46. Submissions raised on behalf of defendant that the Sanction Letter itself is dated 10/03/2012 and thus, the alleged Guarantee Agreement projected by the plaintiff is manipulated document as after sanction, there was no need for guarantee. The Bank satisfies the CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 16 of 25 financial capacity of the loanee before grant of loan,so suit be dismissed, are without merits. These submissions are rejected as ;
47. Even the guarantee by Smt. Sangeeta (wife of defendant no. 1) Mark 'B' is subsequent to the Sanction Letter, which strengthens the case of the plaintiff that procedural formalities were fulfilled by bank at a later time also. Plaintiff stood guarantor on asking of defendants is duly proved as held in paragraphs above. In cross-examination dated 03/05/2025, DW1 - Sh. Phool Chand admitted that concerned bank had approved his loan of Rs. 45 lakh. Rs. 20 lakh were released initially. Remaining Rs. 25 lakh were released after a week. This strengthens case of plaintiff that remaining release of amount was after completion of formalities.
48. Submissions raised on behalf of defendant that Sh. O. P. Gaur, who is witness to Guarantee Agreement dated 17/04/2012 was not examined. Since, plea of forgery was raised, so it was incumbent upon plaintiff to dispel all suspicious circumstances regarding this guarantee document, which was not done and thus, the suit be dismissed are without merits. These submissions are rejected as ;
49. In view of findings in paragraphs above the Guarantee Agreement is proved as per law. Sh. O. P. Gaur, was not a necessary CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 17 of 25 witness to be examined. No particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact.
50. Further perusal of record shows that, DW1 - Sh. Phool Chand in his cross-examination dated 03/05/2025 admitted firstly; that he had got approved Loan of Rs. 45 lacs from the Bank. Secondly; it is admitted that from Account No. 1051008700000480, Rs. 12,93,730/- were debited. Thirdly; He could not tell as to why FDR of plaintiff was forfeited by the Bank. These admissions suffice to prove the case of plaintiff on touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.
51. Submissions raised on behalf of defendant that PW3 - Sh. Utkarsh Karan in his cross-examination dated 02/02/2024 had stated that he has not brought record at Serial No. 2 (i) & 2 (ii) of application under Section 151 CPC for summoning of record which shows that once plea of forgery was raised, the original record was concealed and thus, adverse inference be inferred against the plaintiff and the suit be dismissed are without merits. These submissions are rejected as;
52. The case of the plaintiff stands proved form admissions of DW1 - Sh. Phool Chand noticed above and documents produced by the defendants themselves alongwith documents with written statement prove the guarantee agreement with plaintiff. When original was destroyed secondary evidence is admissible as per law. Same has been CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 18 of 25 duly lead as per satisfaction of the court. Even a separate application to lead secondary evidence is not required (reliance for this statement of law is placed upon case titled as 'Shir Prem Chandra Jain (Deceased) vs Shri Sri Ram Deceased', decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 12 October, 2009 Equivalent citations: AIR 2010 (NOC) 424 (DEL.), 2010 AIHC (NOC) 580(DEL.)
53. Submissions raised on behalf of defendant that the plaintiff in her evidence only mentioned that the Guarantee Agreement was executed in her and in her husband's presence. The Guarantee Agreement shows signatures of Bank Manager and thus, the case set up by the plaintiff is unreliable and thus, suit be dismissed are without merits. These submissions are rejected as;
54. In case decided by Hon'be Supreme Court titled as 'Bishwanath Rai Vs. Sachhidanand Singh', (1972) 4 SCC 707, it was held that the burden lay on the party alleging forgery, to induce the Court to hold that document is forged. No reliable evidence has been lead by defendant to prove that Documents filed by plaintiff are forged as alleged.
55. Submissions raised on behalf of defendants that the Bank Manager had not signed on all the pages of the Guarantee Agreement CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 19 of 25 and thus the Guarantee Agreement is proved to be forged are without merits. These submissions are rejected as ;
56. The case of the plaintiff stands proved form admissions of DW1 - Sh. Phool Chand and documents produced by the defendants themselves with written statement including the loan agreement.
57. Submissions raised on behalf of defendants that complete copy of Guarantee Agreement including the Stamp Papers was not produced. Reference is made to Page No. 49 of documents of the defendant. It is thus argued that the suit be dismissed. These submissions are without merits. These submissions are rejected as:
58. Best evidence available with the plaintiff was produced. Case of the plaintiff stands proved form admissions of DW1 - Sh. Phool Chand and documents produced by the defendants themselves with written statement including the loan agreement.
59. To sum up : Plea of defendants that husband of plaintiff was hand in glove with bank officials and the guarantee agreement is forged is not proved. Admissions of DW1 - Sh. Phool Chand in his cross- examination dated 03/05/2025 that he had got approved Loan of Rs.45 lacs from the Bank. From Account No. 1051008700000480, Rs. 12,93,730/- were debited. Further this witness/defendant no 1 could not CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 20 of 25 tell as to why FDR of plaintiff was forfeited by the Bank. These admissions suffice to prove the case of plaintiff on touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Unnecessary objections have been raised to delay genuine claim of plaintiff
60. No other point was raised.
61. Perusal of record shows second defendant is wife of first defendant and also a guarantor (Mark 'D' at pages 43-47 od documents by defendant). Section 128 of of Indian Contract, Act, 1872 provides that generally liability of surety is co-extensive with the principal debtor. No contrary contract has been brought to notice of Court.
62. Plaintiff is thus entitled to Rs. 12,93,750/- from defendants on account of principal amount due towards her.
63. Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of plaintiff in above terms.
Issue No. 3 is :
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the suit amount, if yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP."
64. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued on this issue that interest be awarded as per law.
CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 21 of 25
65. Ld. Counsel for defendant stated that no interest be awarded.
FINDING OF THE COURT ON ISSUE NO. 3.
FINDINGS QUA INTEREST Principal Sum due towards plaintiff
66. On the strength of the findings returned above plaintiff has successful proved that principal sum due towards her is Rs.12,93,750/-.
PRE SUIT INTEREST
67. Interest for a period prior to the commencement of suit is claimable either under an agreement, or usage of trade or under a statutory provision or under the Interest Act, for a sum certain where notice is given. Interest is also awarded in some cases by Courts of equity. (reliance is placed upon case titled as 'Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. Ruttanji Ramji', reported as [LR 65 AI 66]).
INTEREST ACT
68. Interest may be allowed from the date when the debt is payable. As per Sec.3(1)(b) of Interest Act, if proceedings do not relate to a debt payable by virtue of a written instrument at a certain time, then CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 22 of 25 the Court may allow interest from the date mentioned in this regard in the written notice given by the person entitled.
69. It is held that there was no stipulation in the agreement between the parties regarding payment of interest. So, present case falls under Sec. 3(1)(b) of Interest Act. The plaintiff could be awarded interest from the date of written notice of demand. Legal Notice dated 15/03/2016, Ex. PW1/4 was given seeking interest @ 18% per annum. Same amounts to 'Written Notice' as contemplated under Sec. 3(1)(b) of Interest Act.
70. It is held that the plaintiff is entitled to claim pre suit interest w.e.f. 15/03/2016 till date of filing of suit i.e. 14/07/2016 @ 18% per annum.(Reliance is placed upon case no RFA No. 12 of 2018 titled as 'Ram Babu Aggarwal v. Shreya Developwell Pvt. Ltd.', decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 05/01/2018).
PRINCIPAL SUM ADJUDGED
71. Principal sum adjudged will be the principal sum held payable by defendant to plaintiff i.e. Rs.12,93,750/- plus pre suit interest as directed above (reliance is placed upon case titled as 'Central Bank Of India Vs. Ravindra And Ors.', decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 18 October, 2001).
CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 23 of 25 PENDENTE-LITE PERIOD
72. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 34 C.P.C. in considered opinion of the court pendente lite interest at the rate of 6% per annum on principal sum adjudged (Rs.12,93,750/- plus pre suit interest) will meet the ends of justice.
FUTURE INTEREST
73. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 34 C.P.C. in considered opinion of the court future interest till realization at the rate of 6% per annum on principal sum adjudged (i.e. principal sum adjudged i.e. Rs.12,93,750/- plus pre suit interest) will meet the ends of justice as transaction between parties is not commercial (same was owing to friendly relations).
74. Issue no. 3 is decided in favour of plaintiff.
RELIEF
75. In view of issue wise findings above the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants,with costs :
A. For a sum of Rs.12,93,750/- plus alongwith interest (pre-suit) w.e.f. 15/03/2016 till date of filing of suit i.e. 14/07/2016 @ 18% per annum.
CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 24 of 25 B. Pending suit interest and future interest till realization on the principal sum adjudged (Rs. 12,93,750/- plus pre suit interest) @ 6% per annum till realization is also decreed.
76. Decree sheet be prepared according by reader after payment of deficient Court fees, if any.
77. File be consigned to Record-Room.
Digitally signed by VIKRAMVIKRAM BALI BALI Date:
2026.01.23 16:56:19 +0530 Announced in the open Court today (Vikram Bali) on this 23rd day of January, 2026 District Judge-02, North, Rohini Court Complex, Rohini, Delhi CS DJ No. 1757/2016 Rajni Bala Gupta Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. Page No. 25 of 25